Texas Society of Anesthesiologists

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741445957
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5123701659
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,814,008
Expenses
$1,786,052
Assets
$6,445,379
Liabilities
$430,386

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH REBELLO (PRESIDENT)
  • AMR ABOULEISH (IMMEDIATE PAST-PRESIDENT)
  • JEREMIE J PERRY (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • CHRISTINA BACAK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KIM ROSS (NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA BACAK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $165,456 total reported compensation
  • KIM ROSS (NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $65,260 total reported compensation
  • AMR ABOULEISH (IMMEDIATE PAST-PRESIDENT): $50,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the Texas society of anesthesiologists is to advance, promote and support the practice of the medical specialty of anesthesiology in the state of Texas.

What it reported doing in 2025

The tsa bulletin is published biannually to inform members of current scientific, legislative and economic issues involving anesthesiology. The tsa newsletter is published each spring to announce the interim meeting and house of delegates election results, and to advise members of actions taken by the board of directors. Both publications are sent to approximately 2,500 members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 72.2%; rating input score 72; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.61; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 34 current checks pass · 20 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesInvstMgmntFees column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.